Putting it simply (and with an eye to a pertinent post by Neville B in 'Compulsory Membership?') the ECF is in a similar position to many European governments in having a potential cashflow problem. (Hence the changes to tax systems in order to narrow income/expenditure gaps.)
The ECF felt it could no longer afford to wait for the uncertain income from old game fee and optional membership hence the change to the new, up-front membership scheme. Less players, perhaps, but potentially a lot more members.

To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

Pardon me, but I thought this was the Engish Chess forum. I admit to trespassing into the MCCU area of special interest but I have not done so without being aware of a boundary. I think this is my second offence, though my first caused no discernable offence. My second post here would have been better placed in 'Compulsory Memebership?' Having owned up I will now depart in a southerly direction, wishing all the best to Mick and the MCCU and he who provides this medium to us all. Just adding thanks to Jack.

To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

William Metcalfe wrote:There will also be a proposal from the NCCU to reduce the number of sections in the county champs

.....which I sincerely hope will be rejected. The NCCU which has eight member counties manages to arrange a one day jamboree which two of them attend to contest (if contested at all) with possibly a third county in one of the sections.

The NCCU should aspire to the level of county chess in the SCCU and the MCCU rather than try to pull us all down to their level.

Notts keeps the U180 team going by using players graded <160 which is a problem if both the U180 and U160 teams reach the final stages. Reverting to a 25 point range would make life a little easier for our captains.

An alternative could be for Notts to replace the U180 team with a minor counties team entry (ave grade under 180) which would allow us to use some of our very keen 180+ grade players who currently don't have the opportunity to play county chess.

If we want to keep the 5 graded sections they should change from 180, 160, 140, 120, 100 to ranges that reflect the distribution of players' grades. For example, in Notts there are almost twice as many players in the 140-159 range as there are in the 160-179 range so making the U160 section U155 would give a more even spread of players in each section. The other sections could also be adjusted accordingly.

Notts keeps the U180 team going by using players graded <160 which is a problem if both the U180 and U160 teams reach the final stages. Reverting to a 25 point range would make life a little easier for our captains.

An alternative could be for Notts to replace the U180 team with a minor counties team entry (ave grade under 180) which would allow us to use some of our very keen 180+ grade players who currently don't have the opportunity to play county chess.

If we want to keep the 5 graded sections they should change from 180, 160, 140, 120, 100 to ranges that reflect the distribution of players' grades. For example, in Notts there are almost twice as many players in the 140-159 range as there are in the 160-179 range so making the U160 section U155 would give a more even spread of players in each section. The other sections could also be adjusted accordingly.

We will await the new grades but this year Notts had more than enough players (64) to field two teams at Under 180 and Under 160. The Under 180 captain fielded four players of grade 159 and below (all of whom were graded 140+) in the quarter-finals; similarly the Under 160 team fielded a team all graded 140+ in the semi-finals even taking account last minute substitutes who were pulled in from making the tea.

In an attempt to be an independent arbiter in the in-fighting within Nottinghamshire, the Nottinghamshire captains complained of not having enough players in the 160-179 boundary, and so had a choice:
(1) Weaken the 140-159 team by pinching their players
(2) Weaken their own team by putting in players who were about 130 standard.

Given the U160 won by default at the last minute, freeing up all those 140-159 players...

Nottinghamshire seems to be a pretty big county in terms of active players within the MCCU. Warwickshire is probably the largest. Would be interesting to see some stats on that...

Alex Holowczak wrote:
As it stands, we only have four confirmed captains, so may run five teams. One of 140/160/180 may miss out.

We? Thought you were a confirmed Worcestershire man?!

I am indeed, but I was also Warwickshire Junior Secretary. I stopped doing that (too time consuming), so now I'm Warwickshire Secretary because no one else could be bothered to do it. So it's my job to hunt for captains for these things...

To be fair, Warwickshire's treasurer is also a confirmed Worcestershire man. He plays county chess for Worcestershire too.

Alex Holowczak wrote:In an attempt to be an independent arbiter in the in-fighting within Nottinghamshire, the Nottinghamshire captains complained of not having enough players in the 160-179 boundary, and so had a choice:
(1) Weaken the 140-159 team by pinching their players
(2) Weaken their own team by putting in players who were about 130 standard.

Given the U160 won by default at the last minute, freeing up all those 140-159 players...

Nottinghamshire seems to be a pretty big county in terms of active players within the MCCU. Warwickshire is probably the largest. Would be interesting to see some stats on that...